JUDGMENT : (1) Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel representing the appellants/Bank, Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, Shri Krishna Lal Yadav, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.2/Union of India and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.3-NABARD. (2) The present appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been filed by the appellants/Bank, wherein they have questioned the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 24908 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. It is the contention of the appellants/bank that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, by which application of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected, has been set-aside by the learned Single Judge and appellants herein have been directed to decide the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in the light of the directions given in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2023 : Smt. Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 05.04.2023. (3) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of respondent no.1/writ petitioner, who was working in the appellants-Bank on the post of Messenger [Office Attendant (Multipurpose)], died in harness on 23.05.2016. As on that date, the scheme, namely, ‘Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds or appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases’ was existant in the appellants/Bank. However, pursuant to letter dated 09.01.2019 of the National Bank for Agricultural and Development (NABARD), the Board of Directors of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (appellants herein) adopted the Scheme for Compassionate appointment w.e.f. the date of its adoption in Bank i.e. from 15.03.2019. According to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, Clause 8 (2) of the aforesaid Scheme, which has been implemented w.e.f. 15.03.2019, clearly stipulates that the bank could consider the request of compassionate employment in case of death or retirement on medical grounds even in cases wherein the employees would had died ‘five years ago’. According to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, Clause 8 (2) of the aforesaid Scheme, which has been implemented w.e.f. 15.03.2019, clearly stipulates that the bank could consider the request of compassionate employment in case of death or retirement on medical grounds even in cases wherein the employees would had died ‘five years ago’. In this backdrops, it had been the case of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 that since his father died on 23.05.2016 i.e. within five years from the date of implementation of the revised scheme for compassionate appointment and aid for ex-gratia has not been taken by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, he preferred an application for his appointment in the bank under the ‘Dying-in-Harness Scheme’, which unfortunately was rejected by means of the order dated 08.04.2019 on the ground that the Scheme for compassionate appointment came into force in the bank w.e.f. 15.03.2019 and since his father had died on 23.05.2016, he is not entitled for the consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. (4) Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner filed Writ-A No. 20908 of 2019 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2023, appreciated the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2013 decided on 05.04.2023 and allowed the writ petition on the similar ground and set-aside the order of the rejection of compassionate employment dated 08.04.2019 and further directed the appellants herein to decide the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the directions given in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2013 decided on 05.04.2023. It is this order dated 24.04.2023, which has been questioned in the instant intra Court appeal. (5) Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in giving parity of the judgment and order dated 05.04.2023 (supra) to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner as the learned Single Judge had not appreciated the factual aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order. (6) Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that when the father of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner died on 23.5.2016, the scheme, namely, ‘Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds or appointment of dependents on deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases’ was in existence. (6) Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that when the father of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner died on 23.5.2016, the scheme, namely, ‘Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds or appointment of dependents on deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases’ was in existence. The said scheme envisages to grant of ex gratia financial relief in para-II A or to appoint on compassionate ground in exceptional circumstances. He contends that there were only two exceptional circumstances when compassionate appointment could be given; first was when the employee died, while performing his official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and the second was where the employee died within five years of his appointment or before completing the service of 30 years, whichever was later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children. His contention is that as per the scheme, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment but he was eligible for grant of ex gratia financial relief in lieu of compassionate appointment and in this view of the matter, the appellants/Bank had sent several letters to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner as well as his mother for submitting their claim for ex gratia financial relief, but despite providing sufficient time by the Bank, neither respondent no.1 nor his mother had ever submitted their claim, as a consequence thereof, appellants/Bank, vide letter dated 31.05.2017, had informed the respondent no.1 that due to non-submission of the said claim, the concerned issue had been closed at their end. (7) Learned Counsel for the appellants/Bank drew our attention to the Scheme of compassionate appointment applied in the RRBs w.e.f. 15.3.2019, which had been issued by the appellants/Bank by way of a Circular, to contend that Clause-I regarding ‘Coverage’ of the Scheme shows that it cannot be given retrospective effect. Clause- 1.1 (a) provides that compassionate appointment can be given to the dependent family member of a permanent employee of bank who died while in service, meaning thereby, the scheme covers only those claims for which cause of action arose after implementation of the Scheme w.e.f. 15.03.2019 i.e. in case the death of the employee after the said date. Clause- 1.1 (a) provides that compassionate appointment can be given to the dependent family member of a permanent employee of bank who died while in service, meaning thereby, the scheme covers only those claims for which cause of action arose after implementation of the Scheme w.e.f. 15.03.2019 i.e. in case the death of the employee after the said date. Moreso, on the issue of coverage of cases where death has occurred prior to the date of adoption of the Scheme i.e. 15.03.2019 in the appellants/Bank, NABARD being a Regulatory Authority for RRBs, vide letter dated 16.04.2019, has clarified that the policy cannot be applied with retrospective effect. His submission is that as the death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner had occurred on 23.05.2016 i.e. much before the date of implementation of the said revised scheme in the appellants/bank, therefore, Clause-8 of the said Scheme is not attracted at all and the respondent no.1/writ petitioner is not eligible for any benefit under the current scheme. (8) Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar : (2015) 7 SCC 412 and Indian Bank and another Vs. Promila and another : (2020) 2 SCC 729 , learned Counsel for the appellants/Bank has contended that it is the scheme on the date of death of the employee or at least when the application is made, which would apply. In the instant case, since the father of the respondent no.1 died on 23.05.2016 i.e. prior to coming into force of the revised scheme, the learned Single Judge was not correct in directing the Bank to process the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. (9) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and argued that the father of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner died on 23.05.2016 and thereafter, respondent no.1/writ petitioner, with the consent of the legal heirs of his father, applied for compassionate appointment without receiving any benefit of ex gratia. His submission is that the Bank was duty bound to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the subsisting scheme i.e. Scheme of 2019. His submission is that the Bank was duty bound to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the subsisting scheme i.e. Scheme of 2019. According to him, as per Clause-8.2 of the subsisting scheme, application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent would normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision in that regard had to be taken on merit in each case. His submission is that in the instant case, the father of the respondent no.1 died on 23.05.2016 and revised scheme has been implemented w.e.f. 15.03.2019 and as such, in view of Clause 8.1 of the said scheme, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner would be eligible for consideration of compassionate appointment, but the appellants/Bank, without application of mind, has rejected the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in a mechanical manner by saying that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has not covered under the subsisting scheme. (10) Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner drew our attention to the judgment of the Patna High Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2017 : the Central Bank of India Vs. Urmila Devi and connected appeals, decided on 24.07.2017, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 31878-31879/2017; judgment of the Rajasthan High Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955 of 2018 : Smt. Gigna Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 28.11.2022; judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20345 of 2021 : Rajat Kumar and others Vs. Chairman, Head Office, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and others, decided on 07.12.2022, to contend that the issue of applicability of the revised scheme has been adjudicated and decided by the Patna High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 (supra), which has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2019 (supra), therefore, issue of applicability of the revised scheme has attained finality. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition by means of the impugned order. (11) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record available before this Court, it is required to be noted here that the deceased employee (father of the respondent no.1) died on 23.5.2016. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition by means of the impugned order. (11) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record available before this Court, it is required to be noted here that the deceased employee (father of the respondent no.1) died on 23.5.2016. At the time of death, he was working as a Messenger in Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank. As per the scheme/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. Circular No. HO/01/BR/HRM/2008-09/189 dated 8.12.2008, which was subsequently revised vide Circular No. HO/06/BR/HRM/2013-14/150 dated 23.1.2014, it was invariably mentioned that, in case the employee dies while performing his official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or dies within five years of his appointment or before he completes service of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children, his dependents/heirs would be provided appointment on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances. It was also provided for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds under the aforesaid scheme. (12) It is not in dispute between the parties that ex gratia amount under the aforesaid scheme has not been paid to the dependents of the deceased employee (respondent no.1) due to non-submission of the requisite documents for the same to the appellants/bank. (13) Subsequently, the aforesaid scheme dated 23.01.2014 came to be supersedsed and as such revised Model Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds in RRBs vide Circular No. HO/11/BR/HRM/2018-19/261 dated 15.03.2019 came into effect in the appellants/Bank w.e.f. 15.03.2019. Apparently, ‘Coverage’ under the revised Model Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds in the appellants/Bank is defined in Clause (1), which is reproduced as under :- “1. Coverage : 1.1 To a dependant family member of permanent employee of the Bank who : (a) Dies while in service (including death by suicide). (b) Is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (Incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarters Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the purpose). 1.2. (b) Is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (Incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarters Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the purpose). 1.2. For the purpose of Scheme “employee” would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part time on scale wages, at the time of death OR retirement on medical grounds, before reaching age of 55 years and does not include any one engaged on contract/temporary/casual or any person who is paid on commission basis.” (14) The time limit for consideration of application under the revised Model Scheme is set out in Clause 8, which reads as under :- "8. Time Limit for Considering Applications. 8.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case. 8.2 However, Bank can consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated request, it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such case would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to take appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level." (15) A conjoint reading of aforesaid Clause 8.1 and Clause 8.2 of the revised Model Scheme for compassionate appointment reveals that the Bank could consider the request of compassionate appointment in case of death or retirement on medical grounds even the employee had died ‘five years ago’ and in some cases discretion has been given to the Bank for such consideration even when the death had been long back. (16) In the instant case, deceased employee (father of the respondent no.1) died on 23.05.2016, whereas revised Model Scheme for compassionate appointment came into effect w.e.f. 15.03.2019 i.e. within five years from the date of demise of the deceased employee. Therefore, after the date of implementation of the revised Model Scheme for compassionate appointment, respondent/writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the revised Model Scheme for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the appellants/bank vide order dated 08.04.2019 on the ground that since the revised Model Scheme for compassionate employment came to be effective w.e.f. 15.3.2019 and the father of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner died on 23.05.2016, hence the revised Model Scheme for compassionate employment is not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1. This court finds that identical issue was earlier adjudicated and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2013 : Smt. Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 05.04.2023, wherein the leaned Single Judge opined that there is no bar under the scheme to consider such a claim even when the death had taken place before coming into force the revised Model Scheme for compassionate appointment. Relying upon the aforesaid decision dated 05.04.2023, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner by means of order dated 24.04.2023, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. (17) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that it is not a case where retrospective/prospective application of the revised Model Scheme 2019 is in issue and also considering Clause 8.1 and Clause 8.2 of the revised Model Scheme of compassionate appointment, as being a beneficial subordinate legislation, this Court is of the view that since Scheme, 2019 as applicable to the appellants/Bank itself specifically provides for encompassing all those cases for consideration, wherein the deceased employee would had died five years ago, which appears to be incorporated with an intention to give it a retrospective effect, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly came to the conclusion that the factum of the deceased employee (father of the respondent no.1) having died on 23.05.2016 obviously falls within the purview of Clause-8 of the revised Model Scheme, 2019 and as such the case of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner deserved to be considered for compassionate appointment. (18) On due consideration, we are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and as such, we are not persuaded to take any view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge. (19) In view of the aforesaid, the special appeal lacks merit, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.